SIVACRACY.NET

Below in the comments for the entry about the school that can't put on Big River as it wishes: with a white person playing Jim and a black person playing Huck, an IP lawyer named Matt claims that the action by the estate that controls the rights to the musical is justified.

Here is the Washington Post story about the flap:

Colorblind Casting Roils 'Big River'
Licensing Group Objects to Md. School's Musical
By Ylan Q. Mui
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 21, 2005; B01

Scene: A log raft floats down the Mississippi. Huckleberry Finn and the runaway slave Jim are journeying toward freedom -- and friendship, in an unlikely time. Together, they sing about the muddy waters of the mighty river.

In reality, this scene from the musical "Big River" took place in the auditorium of Glenelg Country School in Howard County, more than a century after Mark Twain penned the classic tale. In this retelling, Huck was played by senior Jay Frisby, who is black, and his classmate Nick Lehan, who is white, played Jim.

That untraditional reverse casting has provoked the ire of the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization, which licenses the rights to the musical created by Roger Miller. It forbade the teenagers to perform the song "Muddy Water" from the musical that was broadcast last night on C-SPAN. And it will prevent them from singing it at the annual gala for the Critics and Awards Program for High School Theater, known as the Cappies, scheduled for tomorrow night at the Hippodrome Theater in Baltimore.

"That's taking a liberty that one could argue is not appropriate to what the authors of that musical are trying to convey about the novel," said Bert Fink, spokesman for R&H Theatricals. "To ignore the racial component of Huck Finn does a disservice to the story."

But Cappies officials said they were practicing a philosophy known as colorblind casting, which doesn't consider race during students' auditions. The practice is widely used at high schools across the diverse Washington region and at professional theaters across the country. ...

Among the many interesting aspects of this incident, please consider that Twain himself gets no say in how his story was portrayed by Miller. As someone who has studied much of Twain's works and as a student of Twain expert Shelley Fisher Fishkin, I would go so far as to suggest Twain might find this casting to be a hoot, if not right in line with his larger anti-racist message.

So whose moral rights are at stake here?

Here is part of Matt's defense of the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization:

They are performing the Roger Miller musical under a license from RHO so they are bound by the terms of said license, whatever they may be.

Contrary to what Siva believes, copyrights actually encourage creativity by protecting the creative works of authors. We can disagee on how long copyrights should last, but without such protections creative persons would be less inclined to invest their labor since others could appropriate it for their own gain. As for fair use, the key word there is "fair."

Posted by Matt at May 21, 2005 05:15 PM

----

Matt had misrepresented my position on copyright. That's unfortunate because I have so much on the record about copyright. It's not hard to find my position. I explained that I make my living producing and selling copyrighted material, so no one believes in copyright more than I do.

This was his response:

So do I, Siva. I make my living defending against the infringement of patents, trademarks and copyrights. The right holders, who are not lawyers, deserve to have their limited monopoly enforced. Creators deserve to know that if they die soon after their work, their families, not free riders, will enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Posted by Matt at May 22, 2005 12:52 AM

BTW, those "free riders" are the American people -- you, me, and every student in every school in the United States. The set of "free riders" includes the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization and Roger Miller, who rode for free on the work of Mark Twain to make something new and special. This is exactly how copyright is supposed to work.

Here are my responses to him. I wanted to give him a chance to respond in a fresh trail of comments. I will repost his reponse in a new entry on the blog so we can give him the fullest opportunity to explain his position:

Matt:

So as an IP lawyer, don't you tax our system of culture and information without producing or adding to it?

And, come to think of it, are not copyright lawyers and the heirs of creative people just "free riding" on the work of others?

In what way are "fruits of [creators'] labor" endangered by this example?

And even if they were, why should we allow our cultural systems to be corrupted for people who contribute nothing?

Isn't copyright about "promoting the progress of the sciences and useful arts?"

Is this not a case of absurd copyright bullying retarding the progress?

Please list one way that American culture is better off because this school can't put on the play that it wants.

Please list one way that Roger Miller's heirs are better off because this school can't put on the play that it wants.

Then, if you can, please explain why we should favor the interests of Roger Miller's heirs over these students. How does making such a choice enrich us?

Who is the "free rider" in this equation?